“Meet the Press” moderator Tim Russert on the election, negative campaigning and the use of new technology

September 4, 2007

Copyright © 2007 PRSA. All rights reserved.

By John Elsasser

The following article appears in the September issue of PR Tactics.

Stories about NBC’s “Meet the Press” moderator Tim Russert typically include descriptions of his strong character and tenacious, well-informed interviews of Beltway newsmakers — not to mention the affinity he holds for his Buffalo, N.Y.,hometown sports teams, the Bills and the Sabres.

As Howard Kurtz wrote in a May 2004 profile in The Washington Post: “Tim Russert is the quintessential Washington insider, a man with tentacles deep in the political and media worlds, one of the few journalists in a puffed-up, preening profession who really matter.” In a May 2004 profile in The New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann wrote that Russert has reinvented the Sunday-morning interview format. Indeed, since 1991, Russert has helmed the top-rated news program, aggressively grilling his guests on the topics of the day.

This year, “Meet the Press” celebrates its 60th anniversary, making it the longest-running program ever on network TV.

On Oct. 22, Russert, 57, will deliver the keynote address at the 2007 PRSA International Conference in Philadelphia.

Russert took a few moments from his hectic schedule in late July to talk with Tactics by phone from his Washington, D.C., office. He offered a sneak preview of the 2008 presidential election as well as his take on the use of new technology by candidates and the media alike.

People are already talking about Election 2008. Thus far, has the discussion been centered around issues or superficial elements of the race, such as Hillary Clinton’s choice in blouses or John Edwards’s choice of barbers?

Tim Russert: The discussion is largely driven by issues, but, in the end, the personality of the candidates always becomes part of that discussion. In my experience, there’s never been this intensity so far out from an election.  As we speak in July of 2007, the first primary caucuses are six months away; the general election is almost a year and a half away, and from every bit of anecdotal data or empirical evidence I’ve seen, three-fourths of the country is very engaged in the campaign.

Are you encouraged by those numbers?

Russert: Oh, sure. For me, the more people are interested in politics and public policy and those kinds of discussions, the easier it is for us to do our job because we have a very open, appreciative and accessible group of folks in the country. The war in Iraq has a lot to do with it. I can’t go anywhere — an airport, the supermarket, church — without people wanting to talk about the war. They have strong feelings on both sides of the issue.

A lot has been written on the MySpace Presidential town halls coming this fall. We experienced all the hype surrounding the CNN YouTube debates in July. Do you think these attempts successfully engage young people in the political process?

Russert: In 2004, the turnout among young people was a little bit higher than in the past. The more attempts, the better at all age levels. But, sure, I learn every time I see candidates in any kind of setting. In the end, I don’t think there’s a substitute for direct pointed questions and follow-ups because politicians are now very skilled at trying to avoid answering or offering a prefab bromide that isn’t responsive but sounds good.  A political leader, particularly a president, can’t make a tough decision unless they can answer tough questions. So, you can always use that as an entrée into the debate — a video question, but it’s necessary to have follow-ups, too.

During the 2004 primaries, Howard Dean was the only person who knew how to use the Internet to run a campaign. This election, all the candidates use new technology, from Facebook to YouTube, and the media are paying attention. Are the candidates receiving too much praise for their use of technology, and are the media overlooking the issues in the process?

Russert: Well, [the candidates are] primarily using it to raise money; that’s where it really has been effective. It is also used to preach to the converted. On their Web sites, they’re offering speeches and little vignettes to rally their base. But there has not yet been a serious discussion of what specifically they would do about Iraq, what specifically they would do about the environment and energy independence, or what to do about health care. [John] Edwards and [Barack] Obama have fairly specific health care plans, but most of the other candidates have not done that yet.
Our job is to keep on pressing and pushing and asking. But the politicians, their job is to get elected without aggravating any particular part of their base, so they’re going to avoid being specific.

PR professionals talk a lot about authenticity and transparency. Do you see any evidence of this so far from the politicians? It sounds like they haven’t really been asked the hard questions yet.

Russert: People — particularly when they vote for president, they take the measure of a candidate — don’t have a clipboard with a checklist of all their positions on various issues. Some do, but the vast majority does not, particularly in a general election. People are now beginning to measure these candidates. They’re watching them, their body language, the way they respond and their authenticity. We’re a long way away from a general election, but people are beginning to move toward judgments now. It’s a gradual process, and it’s one they get from television, radio, newspapers, the Internet — it’s cumulative.

How do you feel about media training? Some journalists grumble that it leaves politicians and others looking scripted and unnatural. Media trainers argue that it makes their subjects more comfortable with the press and helps them stay on message.

Russert:  It’s an interesting discussion because you clearly need a grasp of the basics in terms of your ability to communicate. If you’re flubbing around, and you don’t understand how to put a microphone or an earpiece on or you’re sweating — you can lose people quickly. But as long as you have mastered the basics of simply being able to look comfortable in an interview setting, then handlers and trainers can overprepare their principal.

I can give you example after example of politicians who’ve come on “Meet the Press,” who avoided answering the questions, tried to spin and spin, and when they leave the set, their handlers give him or her high fives, and they think they’ve succeeded.  After the show and by the next day, I’ll have thousands of e-mails from people who agree or disagree with the politics of the person, saying “Please don’t ever have him on again. It’s a joke; the guy’s a fraud.”

It’s quite striking to me how the public gets it. They would much prefer you to give an answer they disagree with — they’d have more respect for you — than to sit there and try to turn around your question. Now there are clever ways to do it. You can get your message out, be prepared and organized, and be a disciplined CEO, a disciplined candidate and still be somewhat responsive, but I think more people are falling into blatant spin. It’s easily perceived — and not appreciated by the vast majority of voters.

Are consumers and voters tired of spin?

Russert: Oh, yeah. Whenever a politician admits a mistake or acknowledges an inconsistency and then explains why, I cannot tell you the response I get. People say, “Finally. Why can’t politicians acknowledge an error? What’s wrong with them?” Or “Why do they have to think that just because they believed something 10 years ago they have to believe it now even though circumstances and facts have changed?” The public is enormously willing to give politicians a break if they think they’re being candid with them.

Why the reluctance then on behalf of these folks?

Russert: They’re afraid of the paid commercials calling them a flip-flopper, which they think is devastating in political terms. But I think once there’s a recognition that “Yeah, this is what I believed, but after looking at the issue and learning more about it, I have changed my mind, and this is why I’ve changed,” it will be viewed as a strength and an asset, and not as a detriment.

So the commercial comes out where they’re portrayed as a flip-flopper and the like. At the same time, if consumers and voters are tired of spin, don’t you think they’re fed up with the mudslinging and the negative advertising?

Russert: Yes, except that everything’s impressionistic from television. They remember [mudslinging and negative ads]. It’s easier to remember that kind of vivid imagery. That’s why you have to respond to it. If you are attacked, and you don’t respond, you really do come out on the short end. We saw that with Obama and Clinton with the early sparring over Iraq and meeting with foreign leaders. You can withstand a negative attack, but you must respond to it.

We’re so far away from November 2008. What do you see unfolding in the coming months with the election?

Russert: It’s a broad field. It’ll be the first time since 1952 we have not had an incumbent president or vice president running. There are the potential of six candidates who could be president of the United States. On the Republican side [Mitt] Romney, [Rudolph] Giuliani and [Fred] Thompson; on the Democratic side Clinton, Obama and Edwards. No one can safely predict today which one of those six is going to emerge as the next president. The Iraq War will continue to be the dominant issue, certainly throughout this year and well into next year.

With such a wide-open race, is this an exciting time to be a journalist who covers the White House?

Russert: It’s exciting, but also challenging. We have 18 men and women running for president of the United States. We’re trying to cover the campaigns. We’re trying to interview them the best we can and give the viewers some insight into who they are and where they stand on the issues. You know, it is striking. We hear the candidates complain a lot about the press focusing on faux pas and sensationalism. We have offered every major candidate for president a full hour on “Meet the Press,” and some have accepted, and some haven’t because they don’t want to go into that kind of setting. They much prefer their paid political commercials and their blogs and Web sites and to put out what they want to put out without ever being challenged.

So, our job is to make sure people realize that what might be suggested, offered or promised by a candidate may not add up in terms of dollars and cents or in terms of common sense. That’s also part of our role.

“Meet the Press” is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. Why do you think the show has endured?

Russert: When I took over “Meet the Press” 16 years ago, I went to see the founder, Lawrence Spivak, and asked him what the original central mission of “Meet the Press” was. He said, “It’s to learn as much as you can about your guests and his or her position on the issues and then take the other side, and do that in a persistent but civil way.”

I don’t think the mission has changed. Each week for the last 60 years we’ve tried to find the best guest to talk about the week’s most important issue. People gravitate to that because there’s an expectation that it will be a quality interview, not sensational. It’ll be substantive, and it’ll be civil. But there’s also an uncertainty as to what the guest is going to say.

I’m often amused by the number of people who say, “Do you have to give the questions ahead of time to your guests?” I’ll say, “This is not the World Wrestling Federation. No. Now, they’ll [the candidates] spend a lot of time trying to prepare for it, but that’s what their staff gets paid to do. And No. 2 is, the most important people on the set of “Meet the Press” are the guests. My job is not to offer my opinion, good or bad, about any particular subject or any particular political figure. My job is to elicit the views from the political guest, so voters can make an intelligent decision — which is in stark contrast to much of what you see on cable, hear on talk radio or read on blogs, where people focus more on offering their opinions rather than seeking opinions.

We talk about people being tired of the spin. I think people are tired of the yelling, too, quite frankly.

Russert: I think you’re onto something there. Yeah.

“Meet the Press” is a popular download. Are you finding new audiences in the digital space?

Russert: I’m told on most weekends it’s the fifth most popular download in the country. We also have an enormous audience — at 1 o’clock in the afternoon, the entire show is streamed on the Web. Then it’s replayed on MSNBC cable on Sunday night, and we’re getting another 1 million viewers there. And the morning audiences have held, so this is all additional, value-added they call it. But the interesting thing is that people love the opportunity of having access to “Meet the Press” on their own time schedules, and I understand that.

Are you OK with being viewed on an iPod?

Russert:  Sure, whatever they want. There’s enough room for me and Bono, you know? [Laughs.]

We talk about the future of news delivery. People are downloading the show — viewing it on their iPod or watching it streamed later. Meanwhile, the newspaper industry has seemingly been on a deathwatch for several years. What’s your take on the future of news delivery? I know you depend on newspapers for preparation for your show.

Russert: Absolutely. I read six or seven newspapers a day. People will get their news and information from a whole variety of sources. One will never be as dominant as network news was 30 years ago, with Uncle Walter [Cronkite], Chet [Huntley] and David [Brinkley] — but the interesting thing now is if we watch the iPods and the Web, what they’re seeking more and more is video content. They come to us all the time asking for bites from “Meet the Press,” or quotes from the “Today” show or a piece from “Nightly News.” And it’s what we do best.

There will continue to be a wide and robust information spectrum in America, which will include the Internet, but, yes, also television, radio and print. We all heard about radio being obsolete, and then suddenly talk radio took over.  And now we have satellite radio, we have cable news 24-7.  As long as there is news, people are going to crave it and want it, and our job is to present it to them in a way that is meaningful, understandable and accessible.

When NBC, General Electric and Microsoft all got together with MSNBC on different things, I had a conversation just like this.  And one guy turned to me and said, “Mr. Russert, you never have to worry — you’re great software."

I’ve been called a lot of things in my life. But I understand [the comment] now much more than I did 10 years ago.

 

Tim Russert at a glance

Russert is considered one of today’s most recognized and trusted journalists. In addition to being the managing editor and moderator of “Meet the Press,” he serves as political analyst for “NBC Nightly News” and “Today.” He also anchors “The Tim Russert Show,” a weekly interview program on CNBC, and is a contributing anchor for MSNBC.

He joined NBC News in 1984. In April 1985, he supervised live broadcasts of “Today” from Rome, coordinating the first American TV appearance by Pope John Paul II. TV Guide selected his use of a white dry-erase board during NBC’s 2000 presidential election coverage as one of the “100 Most Memorable TV Moments” in history. The Washington Post credits him with coining the phrases “red state” and “blue state” to explain the nation’s political divide.

Before joining NBC News, he was chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan from 1977 to 1982. He served as counselor in New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s office in Albany in 1983-84.

Russert has written two books — “Big Russ and Me” in 2004, and “Wisdom of Our Fathers” in 2006 — New York Times best-sellers. Russert’s accolades include an Emmy for his role in the coverage of the funeral of President Reagan, as well as the Edward R. Murrow Award for Overall Excellence in Television Journalism. Russert was also inducted into the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame.

He is a native of Buffalo, N.Y., and a graduate of John Carroll University and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.

Tim Russert is the keynote speaker at the 2007 PRSA International Conference during the opening General Session on Monday, Oct. 22 at 8 a.m.
Please visit www.prsa.org/conf2007 for more information and to register.

View Comments